Battle Creek Enquirer: not right on patent reform

One of the dumbest commentaries of all time on "patent reform" appears in the Battle Creek Enguirer. Therein, the problems with "first inventor to file" are said to be resolved by "post grant review":

But critics say switching to a first-to-file system likely would discriminate against smaller, independent companies and inventors who might see their innovations patented by corporations with much greater resources.

To guard against such abuses, the Patent Reform Act would create a procedure whereby inventors would have nine months to challenge patents that should not have been granted. Inventors who publicly disclose their inventions before applying for patents could use this "first window" period to fight wrongful patents. Proponents say such a system would help reduce often costly and lengthy post-patent litigation and create a better review system for challenges.

Let's see, smaller inventive entities lose in "first to file" because they don't have the money to file numerous applications. Larger entities do have the money, and file many applications and get many patents. Then, the smaller inventive entities, who didn't have much money, are supposed to spend more money to challenge the patents of the larger entities?? It looks like folks in Michigan don't have much common sense.

Of --Transistor radios and Mr. Potato Head had just been invented the last time the patent system was updated - in 1952. --, the transistor was invented before 1952.

Link: http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20110302/OPINION01/103020301/0/NEWS01/Patent-system-changes-would-speed-up-innovation?odyssey=nav|head